For me, none of this is all that metaphysically important in the end. There was only one true stumbling block for me. Not science, not silence, not evolution "“ but evil. But that stumbling block has been removed long ago and I am thus free to approach these big questions without need or anxiety.

For me, also, evil; it's presence, depth and distribution has been the great question. It is a stumbling block for me regarding beneficence. I find myself when reading of Darwin's struggles along this line. But, I have never understood the argument that the presence, depth and distribution of evil proves the absence of a designer.

I think that this good/evil thing is something that we should pay great attention to and believe that we are in over our heads when trying to understand it. I am affected deeply when in the presence of significant goodness and repelled by evil. I do not understand what all this means, but it has great import for our individual and collective life. There are attitudes and behaviors found in our species on the moral plane which are dangerous to our lives. Individuals who portray these tendencies must be resisted. Unfortunately, there is much of this in our present political and collective life.

Thanks for the comment. I read the link and it does get a bit down the road regarding your metaphysic. I won't inquire further but only add that once we get to theism, then we get to the nature of the theistic entity. And, for me, there's the rub. It seems quite plausible to me that the knowledge we have gained via scientific inquiry is consistent with the notion of a designer. But, there things get muddy for me. I prefer in the present to just state that there's "Something More."

I agree completely. For years, I have consistently pointed out that there is no compelling reason to conflate theism with ID. As I see it, ID is about the detection of weak signals against the backdrop of much noise. What is detected or not detected (for whatever reasons) does not impinge on my metaphysics. That runs much deeper (or, for the benefit of others, it's hard-wired).

I understand why ID critics "hear" the Christian God when a designer is invoked via ID theory, but there does happen to be a few of us who don't hear that.

I understand this quite well also. But as we know, the conflation is unnecessary and carries implications.

I hear the plausability of God, but do not infer anything regarding this God's nature. And I really think the truth is closer to a universe which is intelligent which brings forth an EAM kind of concept regarding matter which then posits certain depths that we may never mine. Or the God of deism who creates an EAM type of universe. What this God would do after the science fair project (as TP would say) is started, I don't have any idea. But, again it all does boggle the mind.

For me, none of this is all that metaphysically important in the end. There was only one true stumbling block for me. Not science, not silence, not evolution "“ but evil. But that stumbling block has been removed long ago and I am thus free to approach these big questions without need or anxiety.

I believe that the chances of any particular metaphysic actually being correct are smaller than we might imagine. Hence, the need for humility. I violate this need all the time.

I agree here. The first step toward wisdom is to realize we are fools.

Thanks for the comment. I read the link and it does get a bit down the road regarding your metaphysic. I won't inquire further but only add that once we get to theism, then we get to the nature of the theistic entity. And, for me, there's the rub. It seems quite plausible to me that the knowledge we have gained via scientific inquiry is consistent with the notion of a designer. But, there things get muddy for me. I prefer in the present to just state that there's "Something More."

I understand why ID critics "hear" the Christian God when a designer is invoked via ID theory, but there does happen to be a few of us who don't hear that. I hear the plausability of God, but do not infer anything regarding this God's nature. And I really think the truth is closer to a universe which is intelligent which brings forth an EAM kind of concept regarding matter which then posits certain depths that we may never mine. Or the God of deism who creates an EAM type of universe. What this God would do after the science fair project (as TP would say) is started, I don't have any idea. But, again it all does boggle the mind.

I believe that the chances of any particular metaphysic actually being correct are smaller than we might imagine. Hence, the need for humility. I violate this need all the time.

Just as there is a unique MikeGene-ID (something my critics have coined), so too is there a unique MikeGene-metaphysics; a Fourth Way. The Fourth Way, a work in progress, draws from the other Three Ways. Here is my hope/dream. The Design Matrix will be enough of a success to merit a trilogy. The Trilogy will then be followed by a short Epilogue. The Epilogue will be metaphysics (don't worry, the Trilogy is not a trap that leads to the Epilogue, the Epilogue will make it clear that the Trilogy was never a trap).

I don't know if you have seen it before, but I previously posted my story here. The adventure continues.

BTW, I should mention that I always enjoy your input here.

As for arguing whether "religion is true," if you are so interested in my religious/metaphysical views, you need only ask.

I would be asking also and have long wondered about your metaphysic. I have been encouraged that there has been movement toward a "third way" in recent discussions. I tire of the age old traditional theism vs atheism debate. I suspect others who lurk do also. I wonder if you fit into that "third way."

As for arguing whether "religion is true," if you are so interested in my religious/metaphysical views, you need only ask.

OK, I'm asking.

Is this something that you are comfortable posting to the blog?

The paper you cited was stupendously irrelevant. One of its results was a weak suggestion that religion could help people cope with child abuse. Duh. I have no problem believing in that. It doesn't say anything about whether religion constitutes child abuse or not.

And what makes you think Dawkins is in a position to tell us whether or not religion constitutes child abuse? In fact, the study is indeed relevant in that it helps us appreciate the nonsensical essence of Dawkins' argument: it would have us argue that child abuse helps people cope with child abuse.

Let's say science shows that religious belief makes people happier, healthier, and just all-round better human beings.

Yes, this is the direction that science has been trending in for some time now and yes, it is explained by religion as an adaptation (in contrast to the religion as accident "theory"). This is why Dawkins' hypothesis is bogus. Child abuse does not make people happier, healthier, and just all-round better human beings. On the contrary, this is what science says:

Childhood maltreatment strongly predicts poor psychiatric and physical health outcomes in adulthood. This overview of the literature shows that individuals who suffer abuse, neglect, or serious family dysfunction as children are more likely to be depressed, to experience other types of psychiatric illness, to have more physical symptoms (both medically explained and unexplained), and to engage in more health-risk behaviors than their nonabused counterparts. (Arnow BA. 2004. Relationships between childhood maltreatment, adult health and psychiatric outcomes, and medical utilization. J Clin Psychiatry. 65 Suppl 12:10-5.)

The Professor for the Public Understanding of Science has not only abandoned science; he has rejected it.

All of that is also stupendously irrelevant to the issues that this blog is allegedly about, which is whether religion (excuse me, ID) is true. It's obvious to anybody that religion has some sort of adaptive value, or it wouldn't be as prevalent as it is, but that doesn't make it true.

I understand that simple-minded stereotype dictates that this blog is about whether or not religion is true. After all, most ID critics are conditioned to hear "God" when "ID" is spoken or written. But I do not share this conditioning or enslavement to stereotype. I can and do indeed contemplate ID independently of religion.

This topic becomes relevant when some insist on seeing distancing, at which point I add the context that most critics have made no effort to distance themselves from Dawkins' bigotry.

As for arguing whether "religion is true," if you are so interested in my religious/metaphysical views, you need only ask. ID is all about empirical detection, and whether or not the detection is successful has no bearing on my views.

But if we aren't careful, people will start to talk.

LOL!!! Well, you'd have to get in line behind Rock, who not only knows more than he ever offers, he makes me laugh with every post he writes! Still, we could be a company of compatriots, could we not?

People can change their minds, we've all seen it happen. CS Lewis was a notable rationalist atheist, more than comfortable arguing his points with deadly accuracy in the middle of the last century. His friend J.R.R. Tolkien mayhaps betrayed a theistic leaning in Lewis under the surface, but it wasn't until he he was Surprised by Joy [Impatient as the Wind] that it came together for him.

We can choose our metaphysics. We cannot choose the circumstances and various disasters or surprises of our lives in time. We hope. No one, no matter how hopeless they personally may be, should be able to steal hope from another. Religion is, surprisingly enough, beginning to understand that it must stand with its various heretical offshoots in defense of freedom if it is to survive. Science is still hoping to slaughter the lot of them, making no distinctions between.

I chose hope so long ago I don't ever recall not hoping. No one, no matter how hopeless, can steal it from me. All they get is my compassion. It's a terrible way to live and die. But I've no need to remake you into a clone of me. Believe what serves you best. Allow me the same freedom and we'll get along just fine. Oh… and don't threaten my children, or my right to teach them well.

The Third Way. It will take a great deal of humility and a willingness to let dreams die to make that move.

Nicely stated.

Welcome to the club.

The best possible answer to the conflict is from the outside - the "third way." Biology doesn't know what the heck it's talking about per what is and can be real in physical reality. It must be brought into line with the 'Chief of Sciences' even if it must come kicking and screaming. Spoiled toddler that it is"¦ Meanwhile, religion must be reminded that it doesn't rule the world anymore, and that We the People are sick of it trying. Freedom is religion's gift, but also its curse. But we already know from experience that its overweaning ego needs whipping occasionally. We're pretty good at it by now.

I wanted to quote your whole post but it would be too long. I have followed the recent threads at TT and must say that this is just a great post and gets closer to the reality set before us than anything I have seen. The Third Way. It will take a great deal of humility and a willingness to let dreams die to make that move.